Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: recent Court: mumbai Year: 2005 Page 10 of about 154 results (0.027 seconds)

Apr 21 2005 (HC)

Pradeep Yogeshwar Nimje Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-21-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)ALLMR45; 2005(5)BomCR227; 2005(4)MhLj105

..... by central government under section 54 of mineral concession rules and found that when immaterial circumstance though brought to its notice, is ignored by central government such order suffered from patent error and deserved to be quashed. facts of present petition are totally different and hence this ruling has no application here. in 2002 (2) b.c.r. 149 : 2002 (1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2005 (HC)

Anirudha S. Bhagat Vs. Ramnivas Meena and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-20-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)MhLj41

..... is a chairman and managing director of a company known as m/s. quadricon pvt. ltd. and the said company is engaged in the business of construction of bridge through patented construction system in quadricon. the said bridge was also constructed by the said company.4. a summons under section 160 of the code of criminal procedure dated 7-10-2003 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2005 (HC)

Laxman Vithoba Bhorsat and ors. Vs. Rajaram Vithoba Bhorsat and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-20-2005

Reported in : 2005(6)BomCR418; 2005(3)MhLj969

d.k. deshmukh, j.1. by this petition the petitioner challenges the order passed by the trial court allowing the amendment in the written statement. suit admittedly is a suit for partition. amendment is sought by the defendant in the written statement. amendment in the written statement, which results in including other properties than the one in relation to which partition is sought by the plaintiff does not really amount to counter-claim. therefore, the trial court and the defendant have committed an error in terming it as a counter-claim. it really is an application for amendment in the written statement, so that other properties which according to the defendant are also joint family properties can be subjected to partition. in a suit filed for a decree for partition the defendant who has share in the joint properties is also in the position of the plaintiff, therefore a defendant can claim in his written statement that apart from the properties which are mentioned in the plaint there are other properties which are joint and deserve to be partitioned. 2. i do not find any patent illegality in the order. petition is rejected.

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 2005 (TRI)

Ayurchem Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-19-2005

Reported in : (2005)(190)ELT275Tri(Mum.)bai

..... . g.d. pharmaceuticals ltd. cites supra, the product, i.e. bordine containing boric acid with zinc oxide, was being classified under item 14e of the erstwhile central excise tariff as patent and proprietary medicine. the high court of calcutta held that the introduction of new tariff under ceta did not make any difference to the issue of classification of medicaments and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 2005 (HC)

Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Vs. Vilas Kisan Nehete and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-15-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)ALLMR524; [2005(106)FLR1088]; (2005)IIILLJ321Bom; 2005(3)MhLj371

..... matters on its own merits within a period of four months from the date of receipt of writ form this court (5) in view of the disposal of the letters patent appeal, civil application nos. 97 of 2003 and 246 of 2003 do not survive. they are accordingly disposed of. (6) parties are directed to obtain an authenticated copy of this ..... pertaining to the merits of the case have been kept open to be dealt with by the member, industrial court. 6. we, therefore, pass the following order. order(1) letters patent appeal is allowed. (2) the order dated 8th october 2002 passed by the learned single judge in writ petition no. 5530 of 2002 is hereby quashed and set aside. equally ..... by the member, industrial court rejecting the misc. applications (ulp) nos. 7 to 12 of 1997 are not proper and requires to be set aside. we accordingly allow the letters patent appeal.5. we make it clear that we have accepted a prayer of the appellant to set aside the order passed in misc. applications (ulp) no. 7 to 12 of ..... s.b. mhase, j.1. this letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single judge passed in writ petition no. 5530 of 2002 on 8th october 2002 whereby the said writ petition .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 2005 (HC)

Smt. Chanchalben Amritlal Patel Vs. Deputy Collector (Enc) and Compete ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-08-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)ALLMR494; 2005(3)BomCR461; 2005(3)MhLj834

..... . 261. 9. keeping in view the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, in our opinion, the following questions arise for determination in this group of letters patent appeals: (i) the competent authority while dealing with the application filed under section 22 of the act, seeking permission to institute a suit for obtaining any decree or order for ..... ') by his judgment and order dated 29.11.2000. that order was carried in writ petition no. 2828 of 2002 which also was dismissed on 20.12.2001. the letters patent appeal filed against that order bearing no. 12 of 2002 has been admitted by this court. however, notice of motion taken out therein for interim relief came to be dismissed ..... have filed the application under section 22 of the act seeking permission to institute a suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. in the circumstances, these letters patent appeals fail and are dismissed as such. no costs. ..... d.b. bhosale, j.1. all the nine letters patent appeals involve common questions and, therefore, we propose to decide them by a common judgment. though the appellants in all the appeals are different the facts are similar. the appeals .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 2005 (TRI)

Raju Fabrics and Shri Sanjay B. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-08-2005

..... as per the central excise tariff act, 1985 by allowing them exemption under notification no. 8/97-ce and so the demand of customs duty as per customs tariff is patently misconceived, unlawful and unsustainable. he further submitted that even if it is assumed without admitting that the subject clearances are not goods allowed to be sold in india as per .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 2005 (TRI)

Cybertech Systems and Software Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-07-2005

Reported in : (2007)106TTJ(Mum.)257

..... trained at the cybertec advanced learning centre.10. in contemplation of the activities proposed, the assessee-company had imported a computer software called sap (systems application and products). the software patented as sap is owned by a german company sap ag. the german company has sold number of licenced copies of sap software. but, the german company does not have the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 2005 (TRI)

Cybertech Systems and Software Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-07-2005

Reported in : (2005)3SOT121(Mum.)

..... and trained at the cybertec advanced learning centre.in contemplation of the activities proposed, the assessee company had imported a computer software called sap (systems application and products). the software patented as sap is owned by a german company sap ag. the german company has sold number of licenced copies of sap software. but, the german company does not have the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 2005 (HC)

Empire Industries Ltd. (Garlick Engineering Division) a Company Incorp ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-01-2005

Reported in : 2005(5)BomCR308; (2005)IIILLJ313Bom

..... appellant submits that the interim order which was in force during the pendency of this letters patent appeal may be continued for a period of eight weeks. ms. nerissa britto holding for ms. gayatri singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 opposes for granting ..... the letters patent appeal is dismissed. no costs.11. after the judgment is declared, at this stage, shri sujit salkar holding for shri s.p. dhulapkar, learned counsel for the ..... ) and, therefore, the order passed under section 10(3) of the i.d. act cannot be faulted. we have, therefore, no hesitation in dismissing this letters patent appeal filed against the order of learned single judge upholding the order under section 10(3) by which the lock out declared and started by the employer was prohibited. ..... the factory of the appellant-company. respondent no. 3 claim to be a recognised union. the dispute between the two unions is not relevant for deciding this letters patent appeal, since the issue that was raised before the learned single judge whether reference under section 10(1) of the i.d. act made on the basis ..... d.b. bhosale, j.1. this letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.2.2001 rendered by the learned single judge, dismissing the writ petition no. 6051 of 1995 .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //